Effectiveness of clinical decision support to enhance delivery of family planning services in primary care settings

Strategies for obstetricians and gynecologists to advance reproductive autonomy in a post-Roe landscape

The monumental reversal of Roe vs Wade dramatically impacted the landscape of reproductive healthcare access in the United States. The decision most significantly affects communities that historically have been and continue to be marginalized by systemic racism, classism, and ableism within the medical system. To minimize the harm of restrictive policies that have proliferated since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, it is incumbent on obstetrician-gynecologists to modify practice patterns to meet the pressing reproductive health needs of their patients and communities. Change will require cross-discipline advocacy focused on advancing equity and supporting the framework of reproductive justice. Now, more than ever, obstetrician-gynecologists have a critical responsibility to implement new approaches to service delivery and education that will expand access to evidence-based, respectful, and person-centered family planning and early pregnancy care regardless of their practice location or subspecialty.

Preconception, Interconception, and reproductive health screening tools: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the standardized interconception and preconception screening tools for reproductive health needs that are applicable in general outpatient clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This systematic review identifies research on pregnancy intention screening and counseling tools, and standardized approaches to preconception and interconception care. We focus on tools designed for clinical settings, but also include research tools with potential for clinical implementation. These tools may include a component of contraceptive counseling, but those focusing solely on contraceptive counseling were excluded. Data were collected from studies done in the United States between January 2000 and March 2022.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a systematic literature search to generate a list of unique tools, assessed the quality of evidence supporting each tool, and described the peer-reviewed clinical applications of each. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise the quality of individual studies.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for standardized preconception and interconception health screening tools published in English from January 2000 through March 2022. We used keywords "preconception care," "interconception care," "family planning," "contraception," "reproductive health services," and "counseling." Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines, we screened titles and abstracts to identify studies for full text review.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The search resulted in 15,399 studies. After removing 4172 duplicates, we screened 11,227 titles/abstracts and advanced 207 for full-text review. From these, we identified 53 eligible studies representing 22 tools/standardized approaches, of which 10 had evidence from randomized clinical trials. These ranged widely in design, setting, and population of study.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians have a choice of tools when implementing standard reproductive screening services. A growing body of research can inform the selection of an appropriate tool, and more study is needed to establish effects on long-term patient outcomes.

Implementation of Title X Family Planning Services in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of a Primary Care Network in Georgia

CONTEXT

There is increasing interest and value in integrating family planning services into primary care. Title X services provide an opportunity to expand low-cost access to these services. This study sought to identify and describe implementation factors that influenced the integration of a package of Title X services into a unique primary care setting within a Georgia primary care network whose community health center sites are primarily federally qualified health centers.

METHODS

We used an implementation science approach and were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. From December 2019 to September 2020, we conducted interviews with administrators and providers working at grantee and sub-grantee organizations about their experiences integrating Title X services into their existing practice.

RESULTS

Factors associated with the Inner Setting were especially important for integrating Title X in these settings. Participants identified specific needs related to resources such as electronic medical record (EMR) and reporting templates. Contextually specific clinical training for provision of long-acting reversible contraception and sexual health counseling, as well as administrative training for reporting and documentation efforts, was particularly needed. Grantee and sub-grantee organizations were able to leverage internal and external networks and adaptations to the intervention to successfully implement Title X services and to expand reach to new clients.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating family planning into primary care may expand access to low-income and underserved populations. Approaches that incorporate flexibility and provide tailored resources for primary care settings such as EMR and reporting templates and trainings, and that leverage multiple forms of support and knowledge sharing, may be particularly important for helping to implement Title X services.

Women's Perspectives on a Reproductive Health Services Screening Question: An Alternative to Pregnancy Intention Screening

Background

Current efforts to integrate reproductive health care into primary care in the United States involve assessing pregnancy intentions and reproductive goals, which are often not meaningful or attainable for some. Alternatively, we designed a reproductive health services-based screening question: "Can I help you with any reproductive health services today, such as preventing pregnancy or planning a healthy pregnancy?" In this study, we describe women's interpretations of this question as part of a larger study, exploring perspectives on reproductive health care quality in primary care.

Materials and Methods

We utilized a third-party research firm to recruit New York women of reproductive age (18-45), who visited a primary care provider in the past year. We conducted five focus groups and eight interviews (N = 30). Semistructured guides queried participants on interpretations of the screening question and preferences for raising reproductive health concerns during a primary care visit. We employed inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Participants interpreted the question as offering contraception or pregnancy counseling and care, although younger participants also understood it as offering sexual and reproductive health services broadly. Participants also connected the question with discussions about their ability to conceive. Some participants described experiences with provider assumptions and implicit bias. Tensions emerged around accepting primary care as a setting for reproductive health due to a perceived lack of specialized training.

Conclusions

Participants interpreted the screening question as intended, indicating face validity. Primary care settings should increase patients' awareness of reproductive health service availability, such as by routinely introducing a services-based screening question.

A comprehensive assessment of preconception health needs and interventions regarding women of childbearing age: a systematic review

Background

This systematic review summarizes the preconception health needs of women in childbearing age, necessary to be addressed to have an eventual safe and healthy pregnancy.

Methods

Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus were searched. We excluded studies involving women with reproductive system pathologies and referring to interconceptive or pregnancy period and non-empirical or only abstract studies. Two researchers independently performed the blind screening based on titles/abstracts and full-text and the quality assessment.

Results

Four major domains resulted from the thematic analysis: knowledge, behaviors and attitudes, health status and access to healthcare services. The most examined topics were knowledge and awareness on preconception health, folic acid assumption, tobacco and alcohol consumption, physical activity and healthy diet.

Conclusions

This review could assist healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, midwives) in guiding tailored counselling to women to provide the adequate level of preconception care and act as a reference to policymakers.

Inequities in Chlamydia trachomatis Screening Between Black and White Adolescents in a Large Pediatric Primary Care Network, 2015-2019

Objectives. To identify associations between patient race and annual chlamydia screening among adolescent females. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of females aged 15 to 19 years in a 31-clinic pediatric primary care network in Pennsylvania and New Jersey from 2015 through 2019. Using mixed-effect logistic regressions, we estimated associations between annual chlamydia screening and patient (race/ethnicity, age, previous chlamydia screening and infection, insurance type) and clinic (size, setting) characteristics. We decomposed potential effects of clinician's implicit racial bias and screening, using covariates measuring the proportion of Black patients in each clinician's practice. Results. There were 68 935 well visits among 37 817 females, who were 28.8% Black and 25.8% Medicaid insured. The mean annual chlamydia screening rate was 11.1%. Black females had higher odds of screening (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51, 1.84) than did White females. In the clinician characteristics model, individual clinicians were more likely to screen their Black versus non-Black patients (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.65, 2.15). Conclusions. Racial bias may affect screening practices and should be addressed in future interventions, given the critical need to increase population-level chlamydia screening.(Am J Public Health. 2022;112(1):135-143. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306498).